I am concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars should not have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies. Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalization.

This paper is a structured dialogue between its four authors on the question “How might future scenarios nourish our thinking about climate action?” A scenario set for the future of European regional inequality in the year 2048, developed by the Horizon Europe funded IMAJINE programme, is used as the prism for this conversation. Each author has a distinct disciplinary and professional background, and initially approaches the question from their own angle. These individual explorations encompass: the nature of climate change and our understanding of it in each IMAJINE scenario; questions of risk and responsibility now and in times to come; the use of scenarios to identify current blind spots and stimulate creative thinking; and the possibility that scenarios might offer fresh perspectives which allow us to reevaluate our notions of the sustainable “good life” and identify vulnerabilities which are overlooked in the present day. The second part of the paper comprises reflections on these individual contributions, with the authors pairing off so that two authors comment on the inputs by the other two, and vice versa. This exemplifies the polyphonic and discursive nature of scenarios, understood as “the art of strategic conversation”. The concluding comments reflect on the wider ability of readers, writers, and researchers to use scenario processes and structured conversations like those in this paper to sustain open spaces of mutual uncertainty, exploration, and generation.

Behavioural change is necessary in order to reach a sustainable society. Sometimes this will translate into doing less and it is likely that we need to stop some things entirely. We lay out the multiple challenges of making the act of abstaining count. The issue is partly philosophical - we ask ourselves how to intellectually and semantically frame abstaining; partly practical – how can we count abstaining? It concerns a broader understanding of modernity and interrogates the ideas of progress and growth, technological change, and innovation. Abstaining will also be a moving target as expectations and demands shift over time.

The USA and the EU proposed a ‘Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminum (GASSA)’ as the first step towards a carbon club for clean steel in 2021. Yet, visions about the core elements of GASSA, a common standard for green steel and a tariff on ‘dirty’ steel, remain far apart. This comment discusses the international developments, domestic priorities, and structural conditions that enable and constrain the negotiations on GASSA. Ultimately, we argue that if the USA and the EU at least conclude an agreement with a definition for green steel and provide an opportunity for including further partners, this initiative might become a valuable endeavor for industrial decarbonization.